Aaron,
I appreciate the problem you're trying to tackle here, but I wonder if
having standard properties is the way to go. What you suggest is getting
close to rdf:type, and it's not clear to me that there is a clear distinction.
Also, introducing two-valued logic into the core of RDF would, I think,
take us into FOL territory -- I've said elsewhere that I think this is
something that I think should be built on top of an RDF foundation, not in
the foundation. E.g. how is the following pair to be interpreted:
<http://www.aaronsw.com/> rdf:is bob:ChocolateLover;
rdf:isNot bob:ChocolateLover.
Per core RDF, these are a valid pair of statements (i.e. describe a valid
graph), even though they're _logically_ contradictory. The current RDF
core has no way to state contradictions, and I think it opens a can of
worms to introduce it there.
#g
At 09:09 PM 3/8/01 -0600, Aaron Swartz wrote:
>The spec explains how to deal with relationships > 3 (rdf:value) but not
>those < 3 (i.e. two). I'd like to suggest we introduce two new properties:
>
>rdf:is
>rdf:isNot
>
>This saves us from having to do something klugey like:
>
><http://www.aaronsw.com/> bob:likesChocolate 0 .
>
>and also allows RDF processors to know that it's part of two-valued logic
>and treat it properly.
>
>--
>Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>| The Info Network
> <http://www.aaronsw.com> | <http://theinfo.org>
>AIM: JediOfPi | ICQ: 33158237| the way you want the web to be
------------
Graham Klyne
GK@NineByNine.org